Of course, though. Really -- attractive people are far less likely to be carrying defects which could be passed on genetically. Fit people are more likely to be able to provide, and less likely to succumb to illness. We haven't evolved that far beyond the good-of-the-tribe-let's-mate stage of life, and there are a few undercurrents from it circulating around within our brains. Except in some cases -- that cute secretary becoming an EA -- it's pretty much done on a subliminal level. You feel that you like the person better than their uglier counterparts, that you connect more easily, and so favour them with promotions. Maybe that's just a convenient self-delusion, though. People are always very interested in thinking of themselves as egalitarian.

I worked, at one stage, for a large recruitment company. One of the things which I discovered was that an interview is, essentially, decided in twenty seconds. It is very unlikely for an interviewer to change their opinion after the initial twenty seconds. So, don't worry too much about those "100 Interview Tips" books. So long as you seem competent, it all comes down to how pretty you made yourself in the morning -- for men and women.

What occurs in twenty seconds? The interviewer assesses your physical appearance: your symmetry, your fitness, your clothing and your hairstyle. They also hear your voice, inspecting it to ensure that it doesn't carry an offensive, grating tone. Then, they are done. The rest is just gravy, my friends.

As an interesting side-note, you're more likely to get a job from an interview in the afternoon, where you are cast by afternoon light, than you are to get one from an interview on a rainy morning.

This is stupid shit, and hopefully it's on the way out, but as it'll probably never have significant public movement behind it, it'll remain a non-issue. Who wants to join the "Coalition of Unattractive Professionals Seeking Equal Promotion"?

(Note: what follows is NOT an opinion piece, nor is it supposed to be a debate)

It is NOT a product of "civilization" or "society" or even an acquired taste or moral, it is a part of our instinct, deep entranched into our genes. And social psychology has studied it to such lengths that it would be foolish now to claim otherwise.

For instance, it has been demonstrated that newborns react better to attractive faces than to unattractive ones.

It is, indeed, unfortunate and immoral, however it's just another instance of life sucks ... well, depends whose life, of course.

People tend to attribute completely unrelated qualities to attractive people, and deny them to ugly ones -- such as honesty: most con artists are good looking. It's part of how they gain the trust of their victims.

Children, from their early age, may be extremely prejudiced by their ugliness without anyone realizing what they're inflicting on them

And the reason for this lies, of course, in natural selection, because attractiveness *somehow* reflects reproductive potential.

What is often forgotten in endless discussions about how beautiful people get all the breaks is that a very large part of attractiveness is how you present yourself. Indeed there is natural beauty that some are more blessed with than others. However, in the waking world I have found that most people who complain about people getting better deals in life because they are good looking are those who put absolutely no care or effort into their appearance.

Physical beauty is not everything. However, to brush it off as unimportant defies the nature of living amongst a collective reality. The intelligent person avoids walking around making stupid, nonsensical comments to people. The emotionally strong, helpful person who is always giving a helping hand or inspiration to others, avoids insulting people or kicking them in the shins. Why hide or subvert your physical attractiveness and complain about those who do not?

To be discriminated against because you went to a job interview and were more qualified but they gave the job to a woman with a low-cut blouse and a short skirt is one thing. Is that really discrimination by attractiveness? No, it is discrimination via the interviewer's libido. Sexual seductiveness is not the same as physical attractiveness. To discriminate based on physical attractiveness is something else, if we read the words literally.

At a place of employment I was once on the payroll of, there was a problem. The previous manager had hired far too many people to effectively run the operation. A new manager came in with a mandate. The staff had to be cut by 70%. That was a large number of people that had to be let go, and they did not want to start lay-offs. You see, some of the newer hires were far more valuable than some of the veterans. The manager had a high powered rifle and instructions to target the less desirable employees for termination. She would do this over several months as she identified those she wanted to keep and those she wanted to let go.

Very strange things began to happen. Some of the first people targeted for termination were the more attractive women in the office. Were they less competent than other employees? Some, but certainly not across the board. Fault was being found in everything people were doing and it was like a roulette wheel. Did a female manager coming in and taking over for a male manager somehow relate to the hit list of attractive women? Such things cannot be proved, but some saw the new manager as being resentful of the attention received by these women from their male co-workers. She had to release 70% of the staff, and the choices were left up to her. The first round of terminations was made up of the incompetent boobs and attractive women. Still, she had not trimmed the staff enough to placate the corporate office.

Those who remained were scrutinized. Those who maintained a rebel attitude and did not buy into the new manager's approach to the program were let go. What remained were mostly loyal and hardworking employees (and myself). She had to let go two more people and the task was difficult. There were no attendance or performance problems to focus on. Those people had already been dismissed. The last two terminations were men. The distinction between them and their co-workers was minimal, except on one level. They were both exceedingly unattractive.

The first was an older gentleman who wore clothes that had been in his closet since the 1970s. He radiated horrific body odor and the evidence showed that he was unfamiliar with the value of the toothbrush. His production was up to par with those who worked in his department and he showed a dedication to his job. He was offered a severance package and released. The second was a tall, lumbering workaholic who came to work early every day and stayed late without charging the company for overtime. His penchant for working off the clock was stated as the reason for his termination, due to labor laws and company policy. However, he also came to work right out of bed, feeling that showers were best taken at night rather than in the morning. His matted hair and the constant bags under his eyes made him look like the walking dead.

A female manager takes over. Attractive women and unattractive men are let go. Was there discrimination by attractiveness happening at this job site? The question is rhetorical.